You may have seen TV ads in opposition and support of Prop 7, Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008, But I went of my own fact finding trip and came back with the decision that I would vote NO. Why, very simple, because it is unclear what they wanted to and intend to do with prop 7. One thing is it is too big and after spending enough time at voter guide at California General Election site. You don't need huge 70 page proposition making it too and harder to understand. Unless that was what proponents intended.
The pro Prop 7 did not convince me.
One of the best description I read on the Preop 7 at San Francisco Chronicle, the article has a lot to say but one paragraph rang a bell for me;
"If you're going to legislate at the ballot box, keep it simple, don't write 70 pages," he added. "Our objection isn't to their good intentions, but to their bad initiative." said Ralph Cavanaugh of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Biggest question is what has an out of state billionaire got to do with California's energy. First thing jumped to my mind was Enron! These energy marketeers make messes out of simple things. The other thing is the opposition. How often do you see Republicans, Democrats, energy companies, environmentalists, renewable energy associations, Scientists and simple folks like me on one side.
So I will direct you to the sites that helped me to decide.
California Voter Guide.
San Francisco Chronicle article.
Renewable Energy world, opinion (PDF)
Should two Arizona billionaires tell California, arguably the nation’s greenest state, how to run its electricity business? Los Angeles Times Article.
Why you should vote no on Prop 7
The California Voter guide has a link for Pro Prop 7 site.
Tags:
9 comments:
Wow RavenII! You really did your homework and found out the REAL truth behind Prop 7 didn't you!
I love how you quote Ralph Cavanaugh of the NRDC as if he hadn't been the one to lobby California to deregulate the Energy Industry that led to our "Energy Crisis." Perhaps the reason why ENRON came to mind was because the former Enron CEO (Kenneth Lay) was gracious enough to give Mr. Cavanaugh an award for his "Free Market Environmentalism."
Since you seem to be a bit misinformed, let me point you to a couple of places where you can find some more info. How about the NoProp7.com website where it reads…. “Paid for by Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme - No on 7, major funding from PG&E Corporation and Southern California Edison Company.”
Here's some more good reading…… “PG&E Corp. spent $1.1M lobbying government in 2Q,”Associated Press 09.15.08.
Here’s another one….”PCG: PG&E Earnings Not Just Stable - They’re Growing,” February 23, 2007.
Hmmmm, should we REALLY trust their interpretation of what is good/bad intentioned?
Did you just say you did your own fact finding?? Where?????? On the No on 7 Site???? Are you freaking serious????????
THE INITIATIVE ISNT 70 PAGES. IT IS 42, IF YOU WANNA SPLIT HAIRS, AND ON TOP OF THAT, 8 PAGES OF THE 42 ARE ACTUAL NEW TEXT. On your fact finding mission you should have came across the fact that prop 7 is re-amending AB 32 our 20% by 2010 law that is currently in act, so that it will continue onto 2025 and raise the benchmark to 50%. So, naturally one must include current state law in order to re-amend it into new law - genius isn't it? The only difference is, PG&Es lobbyists aren't here to water down the hell out of the initiative and include major loopholes that have allowed for non-compliance to date - loopholes like a $26 million cap on fines for utilities in any given year.
Keep "fact finding" smart guy. Or just don't quit your day job, whatever that may be.
It is very clear you have not gone on a FACT finding mission of your own. Merely an opposition yellow brick road only to the curtain.
FACT: Prop. 7 is 42 pages in length. 8 of those pages are new legislation, the rest of the 34 pages are incorporate law that already exists. IT IS AN AMENDMENT.
FACT: Your sources didn't read the initiative language either! Don't be so easily duped by Big money, you're smarter than that.
FACT: These are links to sites and information that you can trust to form your OWN opinion rather than regurgitate that of the opposition.
1) Alternative media article to the SF chronicle:
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Money_and_Fear_The_Politics_of_PG_E_5960.html
2)NRDC representative blog post AND factual point by point response:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cnoble/prop_7_is_bad_for_renewable_en.html
3) www.yeson7.net
4) non biased and non partisan informational website for ballot initiatives and the likes: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29
Please Please Please don't be another sell out. You have a bright future ahead of you.
It should be noted that Prop. 7 is a proposed change to existing California energy legislation. Prop. 7's backers, just like anyone else amending an existing law, are required by law to include the full text of the law being changed, with their additions in italic text.
The actual effective text of Prop. 7 is only a few pages long. It's the existing law that's bloated, not the proposition that's aiming to reform it.
Big thanks to all the commenters. At least I learned about the California law about needing to add the existing law to an amendment. I will add all the links given to post tonight.(I will visit them first)
Mary,Red e Fine, Alec thank you for the information and fswxscream than you too but you do not need to be worry about me being smart. Oh my day would not let me quit even if I wanted to! :) Anyway than you the same but if you stick to points they will stand out more than ugly statements.
Raven-
You're right man, my apologies. I've lost sleep over all this blogging, it gets me fired up and angry. I must learn to hit a pillow from now on. I'm glad that now you are connecting the dots.
I guess people that skeptics need to ask themselves..."can I really trust the interpretation of prop 7 from the No On 7 people?....Where major funding is coming from PG&E, SEMPRA, EDISON....are these utilities really concerned about raising MY rates like the commercial says".
Keep up the good discussion.
BOP.
Sure thing fswxscream, I think rather than fighting among ourselves, better to bring the issues out. My understanding is that all of have good intentions.
Among other giants wishing to be environmentally irresponsible is SMUD, but one of Prop 7’s star pitchman is David Freeman, the blunt-talking former head of SMUD.
"If we don't get off of non-renewables in this decade, then global climate change will change this life as we know it. We are in a crisis," Freeman said at last week's hearing. "As a guy who has run utilities, I can tell you it's important to keep their feet to the fire.”
David Freeman knows what he’s talking about. He isn’t some spotted owl lover who likes to camp out in trees. He’s a clear-headed businessman who has seen how things work from the inside. His words ring very prophetic, "As a guy who has run utilities, I can tell you it's important to keep their feet to the fire.” Opponents of Prop 7 want to extinguish the fire and return to the “good ol’ days” when no one paid attention to the environment and renewables were simply ideas that old hippies played around with. This old hippy wants to turn up the heat on that fire and make sure that big business does what it’s supposed to do, become environmentally conscious and concerned.
Post a Comment